Comment

The rapier widespread use is due to firearms making armor obsolete which made a rapier favored against unarmored men. Also a deep puncture wound is unhealable and as medicine progressed the deep rapier wound seemed to have been what the fighters of the time chose to use over slashing opponents to death. Also the rapier is bound to early firearms and the decline of armor in their dominance, simply the Japanese didn't have firearms at that time and didn't have chain or plate mail so the katana was what worked for them.

As in martial arts the winner would depend on the teacher, natural abilities, and how hard the swordsman trained given the teachings were ethical.

"the only thing promised in life is death, everything else is achievement"

Comment

Comment

Viking swords were no sharper or better made than any other nations from that era.
French Rapiers - first I've heard that they only had a pointed tip and no edges. Time to get out the Paradoxes of Defence again.
As for pikes. They could be used again and again, because they used deep ranks of pikemen. If you managed to get beyond the head of the first ranks, you still had the 2nd, 3rd 4th ect ranks to worry about cleaving you.
They could also be used as a thrusting weapon after the initial drop, thus preventing any approach by the enemy.

Taking responsibility for my actions since 1989

Comment

but it is a 20 lb axe head on a wooden pole. Yes, they had different waves of them, but they generally used them for a line of defense. And no, a French Rapiers has no sharp edges on the blade itself, like fencing swords dont... and English one does have the sharped edges. But the French ones do not. I work with the weapons, I can sit there and grab the blade of the French Rapier an dit has no effect on a person, an English one it does.
Viking ones were made differently, shorter because of use of ships and smaller area of space. Their blades were meant to cut through chain mail, not plate armor.

-------------------------
"Dark Days, Bright Nights" -Aeon Flux

"Give me the strength to live, to smile and to love"

Comment

Whats with the numerical damage rating system?? Are we talking about an RPG or something??
Id have to say niether broadsword or katana are "stronger" than the other. If someone hits you with either one of them with the intent to kill, your fucking dead. Swords are made to kill people, not force them into submission or whatever.

Comment

French Rapiers has no sharp edges on the blade itself, like fencing swords dont... and English one does have the sharped edges

My understanding is that it has little to do with nationality and more to do with era. Earlier in the Renaissance, as civilian swordsmanship began to grow and flower, swords were more closely related to their battlefield counterparts. They were longer and more thrust oriented but still had a good cutting edge. Those swords are known today as "side swords" (espada de lato, I think).

As time went on, however, most swordsmanship began to favor the point. These were the rapiers. And as time went on they got longer and narrower and thicker. Which made them better for thrusting but worse for cutting, though they did still have something of an edge. Eventually, however, they began using swords that were essentially edgeless. "Stricia" rapiers are what I believe they were called.

Then, as swords began to be phased out completely by firearms, they got smaller and were truly edgeless at that point. First becoming the smallsword, and then eventually the dueling sword (epee).

Now, I'll admit that is a very general overview, and people that really know their stuff can probably point out places where the specifics were a bit different. But I know that what I described is generally true. The only other thing I can think of is that some areas (like England) changed more slowly and held on to older styles of swords and swordsmanship longer than other areas (like Italy). So you could probably find good cutting swords (and people like Silver) at a later date in places like England while places like Italy had already moved on.

Comment

well, the bottom line is that a one handed sword takes longer to recover from a parry (or sometimes you can't even parry). Afterall, we are talking about 2 equally trained swordsmen in their respective disciplines. the broadsword is hardly a poke and run sword either, so I don't see much of a contest there. As far as the rapier is concerned, if the duel can be kept at outside range, the rapier can be effective, but helpless and I'd say over once it gets close even for a short moment. It's not as if the katana was never used for deep puncture either. It was quite common. To lose a duel simply because the sword wasn't designed to slash when it was called for would suck. To think such opportunity never arises is dumbing it down too.

Comment

Just my two cents, by way of observation of this thread, feel free to correct/comment:

*The claymore/two handed sword/great sword(s) were used more to do damage from blunt force trauma, ie. breaking the clavicle/arms/ribs/skull/legs in a fight, than cleaving.

*There actually was a Japanese version of this "called a "helmet breaker" in Japanese (forgot the actual term).

*Before the invasion of the Mongols, the Japanese had highly ritualized battles involving direct challenges made by samurai to the opposing side including recitations of their skills so as to match up with appropriately skilled opponents.

When the Mongols arrived to the battlefield and encountered this display, their response was to simply charge the Japanese armies and turn them into meat puddles.

Consequently, the Japanese adapted to the new styles of warfare incorporating archery, calvary tactics, and polearms.

Don't have any sources for most of the above, so I can't attest to the validity of this info.

Comment

As far as the rapier is concerned, if the duel can be kept at outside range, the rapier can be effective, but helpless and I'd say over once it gets close even for a short moment.

Which is why it was almost always used with a companion dagger for close-in defense, for just the situation you mention.

The style must have had some merit, because by all accounts Mushashi got the idea for his 2-weapon style by watching Porteguese sailors practice rapier and dagger....

I've had some great friendly sparring with Kendo people - their poweful cuts can be disrupted by threatening counter-attacks with the point (believe it or not, by standing side on, with a long, thin sword holding your arm out- you've got a longer reach. They will stop, or they will be hit. Miss the counter and you get hit hard....though can still often salvage a "double hit". e.g split in half vs. impaled. Take your pick which is more fatal.( note at the time, none of these people would consider themselves particulary good, and neither was I - it was just fun)

The iaido guys I met in Aikido had no interest in sparring - western or Japanese or anything else. They just liked their kata's. Hard for me to see how it related to real swordmanship - e.g speed, distance, timing, footwork, etc (concepts that all exist in Kendo)

I think alot of this is just individual skill. There are very little well documented "style vs. style" historical fights / duels. Furthermore, there is no even anecdotal accounts of a Japanese master (e.g Musashi,etc) fighting a genuine western master (Carranza, Navarez, DiGrassi, Morozzo, Cappo Ferro - take your pick). So it's all speculation